Template:Recommended Licenses

Revision as of 13:55, 9 December 2012 by Jmanico (talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

OWASP Recommended Licenses

(Trying to make a complex choice easy for our project leaders)

<col width=124 style='mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:5290;width:124pt'> <col width=125 span=2 style='mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:5333; width:125pt'> <col width=144 span=2 style='mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:6144; width:144pt'>
Allow commercial uses of your work?
Yes No
Allow modifications of your work?
Yes, no restriction except attribution Yes, as long as modification are also opensource No
Apache 2.0
 (fewest restrictions, even allowing proprietary modifications and
proprietary forks of your project, and more up-to-date than BSD license)
GPL 3.0
 (requires that modifications to your code stay open source, thus prohibiting
proprietary forks of your project)
Sorry, such licenses are not
 opensource and are not elegible to become an OWASP Sponsored Project.  If this is really what you want,
 consider using CC-BY-ND or CC-BY-NC-ND. 
 See http://creativecommons.org/choose for more information and note
that they label these two license as "not a Free Culture License".
AGPL 3.0
(prevents GPL's SaaS loophole)
Library Project  LGPL 3.0
 (similar to GPL but modified for use with libraries that may be called by
other proprietary programs)
Document Project (includes E-Learning, presos, books, etc) CC-BY 3.0
(like Apache but for documents)
CC-BY-SA 3.0
 (like GPL but for documents. 
 Alternately you can use GFDL, but projects like Debian and Ubuntu
don't accept it)

Why are you recommending these licenses? http://www.datamation.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3803101_1/Bruce-Perens-How-Many-Open-Source-Licenses-Do-You-Need.htm
Which other opensource licenses are elegible for an OWASP Project? http://opensource.org/licenses/category